No one has mentioned a PA-11 yet. This one looks drop dead sexy; http://tappix.com/812490. You are also burning a LOT less fuel. You can find PA-11s for less than that one as well. I believe they are going for around 35k, plus or minus.

If you are looking for a little more versatility I would go with a 160 or 180 horse Pacer on fatties. They are a really good compromise. Will go many places a Cub will, but get there today. Those are usually between 20-30k.

Well, there is only one choice out there for the absolute best airplane ever made. Go Buy A Super Cub!!! You will love it, it will love you, it will keep increasing in value, you can land anywhere that anyone else can, you can land anytime anyone else can, it really can jump tall buildings with a single bound, is almost as fast as a speeding bullet, and God forbid, if ya do decide to sell it, there's a whole bunch of people out there that will want it.

Does it scare anyone else how much sense coyote uglys argument makes?

You can get a good SC for 50K?

Your 172 will land in all the places you are likely to want to go. Short, rough, grass or gravel strips is all most of us do and your plane will take you those places. You'll save a a bundle on insurance too.

If you want to land on gravel bars or places with higher weeds I'd go for the taildragger. Which, I did. Like others have said I just plain like the looks of a taildragger and that's why I started flying them. Now I can't hold my feet still to save my life so I look like a drunken fool trying to taxi a nosewheel. That's why I'll probably always fly conventional gear.

If you must land on big pebbles or fallen logs, go for the big bushwheels in addition..

Even if you just "wanna" learn to fly tailwheel, I think it's worth it. Go get some stick time in one and see if you even like it or not. But honestly they really aren't difficult at all.

I would agree with Rob, the tailwheel should be no more challenging than tri gear to land in a cross wind, on asphalt, etc it you get the right instruction. Problem being most pilots these days have learned in tri- gear, and never figure out what those two pedals on the floor are really for. For $50K, do you want something that will haul a 1000 pounds out of short strips? Then about your only choice is a big engine Stinson, some Maule's, but I doubt you'll touch much of a 180 for that. Do you need need 1 person and camping gear? Then that opens up a lot of the PA-11, champ, etc type of market. If you need to sell your 172 to buy your next plane, be prepared to take a big haircut. Probably your best bet right now is to play with what you have, and a few accessories - big tires, VG's, maybe a flatter prop, and see how it works. I'm biased to the Stinson cause I have one, but am selling to move to a 185. The big motor'd Stinson's really perform. Mine's legal for 1012 pounds on wheels, and will pull that off the ground in real short order. They land slow - 45 mph, and are relatively fast for a bush plane - 130mph on 8.50's. They are know to be very user friendly taildraggers, and their insurance rates reflect that.

Supercub is what you want if you want to do this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJkpziNBV8I

Now THAT is incredible!

Rhyppa wrote:I would agree with Rob, the tailwheel should be no more challenging than tri gear to land in a cross wind, on asphalt, etc it you get the right instruction.

I don't think you can put it all on training. I used to work for a company that thought you could train a monkey to do brain surgery if you just gave it the right training. Won't work. Some tasks are more challenging and even with proper training, external conditions make the task unworkable.

A tricycle gear plane is more stable on the ground, and there is no getting around that. WWII bombers like the B17, with tail gear, usually operated off airstrips with runways pointed multiple directions to reduce the difficultly in cross wind operations. The civilian expansion of flying in the '50s was largely the result of Cessna and Pipers with tri-gear. A stressful day, bad weather, or other external factors can knock a person off their game enough to make the difference between a safe arrival, and a ground loop. The statistics make this quite clear.

All that said, the extra skill required of a tail dragger can be a source of pride, an enjoyable challenge, and enable you to land in knarley places that us nose draggers will shy away from. If you like any of these advantages, go for the tail dragger, you'll have a blast.

One more thought. If you really like your 172, keep it and get a less expensive tail dragger. The highlander we've been watching the video of would be an economical machine for everything except longer cross country, which your Cessna would fulfill very well.

Let us know what you pick!

tom

Rhyppa wrote:I would agree with Rob, the tailwheel should be no more challenging than tri gear to land in a cross wind, on asphalt, etc it you get the right instruction. Problem being most pilots these days have learned in tri- gear, and never figure out what those two pedals on the floor are really for. For $50K, do you want something that will haul a 1000 pounds out of short strips? Then about your only choice is a big engine Stinson, some Maule's, but I doubt you'll touch much of a 180 for that. Do you need need 1 person and camping gear? Then that opens up a lot of the PA-11, champ, etc type of market. If you need to sell your 172 to buy your next plane, be prepared to take a big haircut. Probably your best bet right now is to play with what you have, and a few accessories - big tires, VG's, maybe a flatter prop, and see how it works. I'm biased to the Stinson cause I have one, but am selling to move to a 185. The big motor'd Stinson's really perform. Mine's legal for 1012 pounds on wheels, and will pull that off the ground in real short order. They land slow - 45 mph, and are relatively fast for a bush plane - 130mph on 8.50's. They are know to be very user friendly taildraggers, and their insurance rates reflect that.

I'm just looking for a fun machine. Don't anticipate the need to haul heavy loads at all. Mostly just me and the wifey and maybe a dog and some light gear.

At the moment I'm leaning towards just beefing up the tires on my 172. I think that's - from a $ (and no surprises) standpoint my best bet. I already put on VG's by the way.

Just can't stop looking over my shoulder at those lil tail draggers tho...

I really appreciate the thoughts you all are sharing with me. They are all very helpful - thank you.

svanarts wrote:Supercub is what you want if you want to do this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJkpziNBV8I

Lonnie can fly a SC, no doubt about that, but I think there may have been a little breeze too.

spacer wrote:I'd buy the rest of my CH801 kit, and have it trucked to a completion
center in TX so I can finish it up in good time, with their work space, tools,
and mechanics experienced in the type.

I'd still have enough left for an engine and halfway decent instruments.

I will second the 801 suggestion,,,, I am happy with mine, <G>

a64pilot wrote:

svanarts wrote:Supercub is what you want if you want to do this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJkpziNBV8I

Lonnie can fly a SC, no doubt about that, but I think there may have been a little breeze too.

Looked a little uphill too but so what? Still darned impressive.

That was a friend of Loni's, (Alec) he was flying a Super Cub that Mike Olsen of Yakima WA. had built by Cub Crafters more then a few years back with lots of mods (Redneck1). It is a heavy cub but impressive none the less and Alec has more then a few hours in it. With that much wind even a 172 would look impressive though. That airplane lands at 40mph +-2 in no wind so you don't do 30-40 ft. T.O. and landings like that without a lot of wind...

Greg

I think you're on the right track, keep what you have. Most of the time we spend many more dollars on fixing up and making right a new airplane. You already know what you have.

As far as the Pacer idea, I had one and sold it this last Summer for practically nothing (these are the times). It performed well/alright in BC Idaho, Nevada, Colorado and other fun places with the 150 HP. I had over 500 hours in it and once I got all the bugs worked out, I thought it was a very stable airplane. With that said, there were several guys I flew with that have/had 180 hp Pacers. They seemed capable of a lot more versatility than what mine was capable of. Steve's Aircraft in White City, Oregon has a newer STC for installing a O-360 with a C/S prop. I want to say it's the 200 HP, but I might be wrong on that. I haven't flown it, but have seen it flown and seen the numbers it achieves. If I hadn't bought a 60' 182 some years back and converted it to a 180, I likely would have gone down that path.

Roger

Terryd23 wrote:What would you get?

Right now I have a 1976 172M that is is tip top shape with new interior and new 160 hp engine. But I am finding that I am becoming increasingly drawn to turf strips. I don't do a lot of longer trips - mostly local flying and some cross countries up to 200 miles or so.



Any thoughts would be much appreciated!!!

I"d look for straight tail 182 -tail wheels are nice but I can and have went wherever I want. One hell of a lot easyier to control landing or taking off.
Insurance on tail dragger 180 same year will run 35% higher. I've got big over sized wheels and brakes on mine. Sportsman Stol kit -no VG's .
I use mine like a pickup -ATV >still cruises 155-160 mph and lands and take's off on a dime. I've seen one on Barnstormers (I believe it's a 1958)
for 32K .You could by it and set it yourself (new-Overhauled motor etc.)
for less than 50 K and still have decent airplane for cruising or back country.

svanarts wrote:Supercub is what you want if you want to do this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJkpziNBV8I

(Dang! Thats just about as good as a helicopter!)

Rhyppa wrote:For $50K, do you want something that will haul a 1000 pounds out of short strips? Then about your only choice is a big engine Stinson, some Maule's, but I doubt you'll touch much of a 180 for that.

The price of everything is down. Friend of mine from this list just bought a mid 50's C180 for $52K. 50 hours on the engine and prop. If you have the hours get a C180 instead of a Maule, the insurance on a Maule is ridiculous. The C180 will cost my buddy $1500 a year. A similar Maule can be twice that.

Terryd23 wrote:What would you get?

Right now I have a 1976 172M that is is tip top shape with new interior and new 160 hp engine. But I am finding that I am becoming increasingly drawn to turf strips. I don't do a lot of longer trips - mostly local flying and some cross countries up to 200 miles or so.

My stock tires do the job for where I've been going but they may in the future be somewhat prohibitive so I've been thinking about putting on fatter tires. Frankly, I'm quite happy with my 172 but find myself constantly looking at tail draggers. For whatever reason I just think they are beautiful, not to mention their capabilities over and above what a nose-wheel can offer. I may very well end up keeping "Gracie" as every squawk has been attended to and she is clean as can be but I'm going through the due diligence / research phase as I try and make a decision one way or the other.

Preferences: Stick... Side by side seating (I know I know - that's the wifes preference - not mine. And I "might" be able to get past that)... Useful load must be fair as I'm 225 and the wife 180 (I guess that knocks a lot off the list right there but thems the facts)...

Any thoughts would be much appreciated!!!

My two cents worth. The 172 does nothing great, but a whole lot a things pretty darn good. A little more horsepower (like a 180hp conversion) and walla! you have quite a plane there. Since you have a new 160hp motor a 180hp probably isn't in your future but you may want to look into the "Powewrflow" exhaust. I've heard some good things about it. Like I said, even a little more horsepower is a really good thing.

We use our 172 for plane camping and I love the ease of removing the back seat to make plenty of room for the junk etc. Plus with the seats in there is truly room for folks back there.

Its not very sexy airplane, but whenever I consider what my next plane should be, and considering all my (actual needs), I keep coming back to the 172 as the most practical that meets most of my needs 99% of the time.

All here have made good arguments for their preference. I suggest you be realistic about what your really going to be using your plane for the majority of the time. (170 is a option if you just have to have a tail wheel, especially with a 180Hp. And then you have that lovely round tail. I love round things on airplanes, but thats another story.)

The main thing on my wish list is probably more horses. When your taking off a grass or dirt strip at 4,500ft on a warm day with tree's looming ahead, you aint going to be saying to yourself: "dang, I wish this thing had a tail wheel"

I only have 150hp so I have to find more horsepower in other ways. I always plan so I dont arrive at short high strips with anymore fuel on board than I truly need and always plan at least "my departures" for the cool early morning hours. These two things are "free" horsepower that should be taken advantage of in planes like ours. Add stuff like VGs, powerflow, flatter prop, tires etc.. and presto! Your boring old 172 can do most stuff you desire it to.

(I'm gonna go look at a Beaver now. )

whynotfly wrote:And then you have that lovely round tail. I love round things on airplanes, but thats another story.)

(I'm gonna go look at a Beaver now. )

Yeah.......i know what your thinking